Posted: 1/18/24 at 10:34am
I liked it but didn't love it. Agree with Bakula being the weak link, Ben Levi Ross, Hannah Cruz and Fergie Phillippe being fantastic, Mona Bland being the best character in the whole show, and visually it's stunning. I liked a lot of the music. It's worth discount pricing. But I can't see it going farther than this run unless they make major changes.
Posted: 1/19/24 at 9:46pm
For those who have been, what’s the runtime?
Posted: 1/19/24 at 9:56pm
I saw the show this evening and found it to be rather sterile. I am sure it was passionately written but it did not translate onstage. The direction was clunky and much of the acting was rather wooden. It was as if all involved in production did not fully believe in the project. I would have preferred a stripped down black box version with more emphasis on 3 dimensional characters and purpose. I think I would have felt more invested. The ending is given away far to soon. I could have done without the chorus and some of the silly choreography.
That being said the two lead actors sang well. Ben Levi Ross was very similar to Ben Platt in manner and vocal style which made me think he was influenced by him in some way. Scott Bakula sounded great vocally but did not seem fully committed to his character. He usually has a gleam in his eye when he enjoys what he is doing but it was absent.
Updated On: 1/20/24 at 09:56 PM
Posted: 1/20/24 at 12:34am
The Wailing Wall number near the end of the show is one of the most beautiful things Ive seen on stage in a while, like the cast just sounded huge and the lighting and the choreography, it was electric. Definitely his best score since Bridges of Madison County. Its not Parade, but not much is.
I was a big fan of the show, sitting in the second row at the First Preview, it felt like a very special night, especially with him conducting, which was part of why I snatched up a ticket for that performance.
Posted: 1/20/24 at 4:10am
gleek4114 said: "For those who have been, what’s the runtime?"
It runs 1 hour and 45 minutes without an intermission.
Posted: 1/20/24 at 9:59am
UWS10023 said: "Scott Bakula sounded great vocally but did not seem fully committed to his character. He usually has a gleam in his eye when he enjoys what he is doing but it was absent."
I wouldn't blame him for not being able to get a handle on a character that doesn't make sense. O'Brien is the editor of this supposedly really prestigious and respected magazine...but he's also an idiot? (Early on the Cruz character says he doesn't know the difference between two countries.) Is he purposely racist and sexist, or unconsciously so?
It's noteworthy that in the real story
the primary editors involved didn't lose their jobs and the magazine didn't end, because once it was pointed out what was happening, they investigated and called Glass into account. Here, everyone ignored Mona Bland's letters, no one investigates anything (except Muriel the fact checker finally, who hands the evidence over to someone outside the magazine), so he has to resign in disgrace and the magazine has to close.
The plot requires O'Brien to be an idiot, which can't be easy to play. Has Bakula ever played an idiot, or an outright villain?
Posted: 1/24/24 at 7:09am
MemorableUserName said: "UWS10023 said: "Scott Bakula sounded great vocally but did not seem fully committed to his character. He usually has a gleam in his eye when he enjoys what he is doing but it was absent."
I wouldn't blame him for not being able to get a handle on a character that doesn't make sense. O'Brien is the editor of this supposedly really prestigious and respected magazine...but he's also an idiot? (Early on the Cruz character says he doesn't know the difference between two countries.) Is he purposely racist and sexist, or unconsciously so?
It's noteworthy that in the real story
The plot requires O'Brien to be an idiot, which can't be easy to play. Has Bakula ever played an idiot, or an outright villain?"
It would have been an interesting take although it did not seem to be in the writing. I think one of the problems with the book is that you ultimately do not care about the outcome or the characters. I wonder if it would have made a better straight play. Brown’s music workers better with emotional storylines that audiences are invested in.
Posted: 1/25/24 at 12:44pm
Extended through March 3rd:
https://mcctheater.org/tix/the-connector/#book
Posted: 1/26/24 at 1:48am
Fun Easter egg observed from the first row: the magazine spread that Scott Bakula holds up near the beginning has the lyrics to The Schmuel Song under the headline.
Posted: 1/26/24 at 7:03pm
Production photos are up on the website. It looks like they recycled the Prima Facie set
https://mcctheater.org/tix/the-connector/#gallery
Posted: 1/27/24 at 11:22am
Did anyone else see an early preview and have like... none of the projections featured in the production photos? When I saw the photos all I could think was "Oh, I definitely didn't notice those, or I probably would've liked that moment/scene better..."
Just want to know if I'm crazy
Posted: 1/27/24 at 11:51am
They were there in the first Saturday night preview (the third preview, I believe). The unfolding Scrabble tiles in that number, the story and edition numbers as she introduced each of his pieces, the background in the Jerusalem number, etc.
Posted: 1/27/24 at 12:04pm
They were there on the Sunday night preview as well. For me, they were a highlight of the show.
Posted: 1/27/24 at 12:14pm
MemorableUserName said: "They were there in the first Saturday night preview (the third preview, I believe). The unfolding Scrabble tiles in that number, the story and edition numbers as she introduced each of his pieces, the background in the Jerusalem number, etc."
This is the show I was at so I definitely just missed them. Sounds like I'll have to go back! The typewriter throughout the show was definitely there, but I missed the Scrabble tiles.
Posted: 1/27/24 at 4:34pm
Do all actors typically stage door after the show?
Posted: 1/28/24 at 10:43am
Caught this show yesterday and I'm sorry to say I'm very mixed on it. I love JRB and I think there are some songs in this show that are fantastic and approaching some of his best work. Having said that, there are also some songs that really did not click with me, and I think that had more to do with how some of them were used in the story than the songs themselves. Also, this show is still in previews so I know there are many changes to come, so take all my critiques with a grain of salt and buy tickets to see for yourself.
My biggest gripe would be the scenes that illustrate the articles Ethan is writing. I understand why they exist, to try and show us how these stories would capture the imaginations of the readers, but I just couldn't help but feel very bored by those songs because they're depicting things that never happened. It's hard to get invested in the story they're trying to tell us when you know its fake. And I'm also not sure the stories they chose are that interesting. It's probably my lack of knowledge of the time period (I was born in 95 so I pretty much missed the Magazine Era) or being spoiled by the internet's abundance of strange content. But it was just hard to get in the mindset of understanding why those kinds of human interest stories made the splash they did.
The song that I had the most trouble with was the Jerusalem number, which is staged after the cat is out of the bag and everyone knows Ethan made everything up. So we have to sit through a long number about the details of something that never happened? I just didn't get it. I think if the song were to have some built-in Irony, like Ethan is singing the story of his article but there are parallels to how his career is about to be over, that might have worked. But just a straight song about faith? It felt very oddly placed. Maybe there are parallels I missed? But if that's the case they should be dialed up substantially.
The score is at its best when its songs about the characters at the magazine themselves. I loved the fact-checker's song and anything Robin sang. Hannah Cruz was incredible and added so much depth to a character that felt a little underwritten at times.
I'll stop rambling for now. It's really frustrating because I do think there's a great show in here somewhere, but there are a lot of baffling choices that bog it down.
Updated On: 1/28/24 at 10:43 AM
Posted: 1/29/24 at 1:20pm
There aren't any great discounts out there for this beyond the TodayTix Rush, right?
Posted: 1/29/24 at 1:23pm
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "There aren't any great discounts out there for this beyond the TodayTix Rush, right?"
GENERAL RUSH: $35 RUSH Tickets (inclusive of all fees) are available two hours prior to each curtain, subject to availability. Limit 2 per person. Must purchase in-person at MCC Theater box office.
STUDENT RUSH: $25 STUDENT RUSH Tickets are available two hours prior to each curtain, subject to availability. Limit 1 per ID. Students must present their school ID card at the MCC Theater box office to purchase tickets.
Posted: 1/29/24 at 4:40pm
I saw this on Friday and really, really loved it. It was a bit of a slow burn for me – although I enjoyed the whole thing, I wasn’t full IN it until maybe half way through. But once I was in it, I was all in.
There’s certainly room for improvement, but as a whole I found the story very interesting and thought the score was gorgeous (a song or two could be cut, but even those I didn’t find necessary I enjoyed).
I also have to mention Ben Levi Ross – I think he is giving a fantastic performance.
I might try to catch this one again before it closes.
Posted: 1/30/24 at 6:22am
I have to say that front row partial view was definitely partial view. I have sat in many partial view seats over the years in various New York Theaters and my view from the seat for this particular production was the most obstructive. The frustrating thing was that it could have been corrected by some slight set piece adjustments that would not have compromised anything for the rest of the house. The production design was very chilly and the set design was symmetrical. Some of the blocking was robotic. I guess it was by choice but I am not sure why.
Posted: 1/30/24 at 11:46am
UrNotAMachine said: "I'll stop rambling for now. It's really frustrating because I do think there's a great show in here somewhere, but there are a lot of baffling choices that bog it down."
You weren't rambling; your points were well-made and very welcome. As someone who didn't care for the show (and likes it less as time goes on), I'm glad to read some takes that aren't (inexplicable, IMO) raves.
Posted: 1/30/24 at 12:11pm
UWS10023 said: "I have to say that front row partial view was definitely partial view. I have sat in many partial view seats over the years in various New York Theaters and my view from the seat for this particular production was the most obstructive. The frustrating thing was that it could have been corrected by some slight set piece adjustments that would not have compromised anything for the rest of the house. The production design was very chilly and the set design was symmetrical. Some of the blocking was robotic. I guess it was by choice but I am not sure why."
Hmm... is that the whole front row? Or just the sides? I'm dead center front row in two weeks.
Posted: 1/30/24 at 12:40pm
haterobics said: "UWS10023 said: "I have to say that front row partial view was definitely partial view. I have sat in many partial view seats over the years in various New York Theaters and my view from the seat for this particular production was the most obstructive. The frustrating thing was that it could have been corrected by some slight set piece adjustments that would not have compromised anything for the rest of the house. The production design was very chilly and the set design was symmetrical. Some of the blocking was robotic. I guess it was by choice but I am not sure why."
Hmm... is that the whole front row? Or just the sides? I'm dead center front row in two weeks."
Front row center was great IMO (with usual caveats about needing to crane your neck up).
Posted: 1/30/24 at 1:10pm
Ptero2 said: "Front row center was great IMO (with usual caveats about needing to crane your neck up)."
Phew! Thanks!
Posted: 2/2/24 at 7:09pm
I saw this last night and thought it was good, but not great. It felt like a work in progress.
The cast is fine. Ben Levi Ross carries the show nicely. Bakula is okay, but I don't think has enough material to justify using in an actor of his caliber. The new JRB score is wonderful. I especially loved the Wailing Wall number near the end.
The story is pretty much identical to the movie "Shattered Glass" from 20 years ago, which is based on real events.
Shattered Glass (2003)
Young hotshot journalist Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) puts on a good show for his adoring editor, Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria), but admits deep insecurities to his fellow writer, Caitlin Avey (Chloë Sevigny). When Glass begins turning in outrageous stories, his popularity skyrockets, but rival journalist Charles Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) becomes suspicious as to their factual accuracy, and eventually discovers that Glass has been fabricating many of his sources.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
